Article 22(5) | Detenue Must Be Conveyed ‘Time-Limit’ Within Which He Can Make Representation Against Detention
Case: Tariq Ahmed v. Union Territory of J & K & Ors.
Coram: Justice M.A. Chowdhary
Case No.: WP (Crl) No. 45/2021
Court Observation: “This is another reason, as to why the impugned order would be vitiated since the detenue’s right to make a representation to the detaining authority was only available to him till approval of detention order by the Government, it follows as a logical imperative that the detaining authority should have communicated to the detenue in the grounds of detention the time limit, in which, he could make a representation to it i.e., till the approval of the detention order by the State Government.”
“Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanizing the harsh authority over individual liberty.”
“Reproducing the dossier prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban in the order of detention, almost word by word; non furnishing of the whole of the record on which detention order was based; furnishing the material in English and not the language of the detenue; and not informing detenue of his right to make representation before the Detaining Authority or the Government, all reflect that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind to draw the subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner and detenue has also been deprived of his fundamental right to make effective and meaningful representation against the detention order to the Detaining Authority and the government.”
Previous Posts
CPC – Application To Amend Admissions Can Be Entertained Even After Judgment Is Reserved Under Order XII Rule 6: Delhi High Court Download Judgement
